It's no secret I'm hardly a fan of this guy's approach to wielding state power but I grudgingly acknowledge he's done much of what he promised to do, with the perhaps notable exception of stopping the seas from rising.

He's shrewd enough to manage his opposition so that they seem to be petty which is statesmanlike, I guess, although his opponents could certainly do better.

On domestic policy I give him a C, mainly because he's too smart to earn a D so some of what he's done or not done has to be intentional.

Foreign policy he gets an A- (although it will be interesting to see if his comparatively laid back approach to combatting 'terrorism' has the effect I think he wants). Even the most rabid libertarian isolationist types would have to admit his hands off approach to solving the world's problems are closer to what the founding fathers envisioned than any President in recent memory has practiced.

His opponents in the last two elections were appalling. I can never understand why parties on either side of the Atlantic insist on putting up such useless champions but somehow BO managed to avoid getting left behind.

It's the job that's crap though with the constitutionally-guaranteed antagonism between President and Congress. Anything that he has achieved on the domestic front is a major success which he should get an A+ for IMO.

As usual the Pres makes up for his inevitable domestic difficulties by doing fairly well on the foreign front. Even Nixon scored there.

As for the seas rising, well yes he didn't do much there but Canute springs to mind...
Posts: 24 | From: Welwyn Garden City, UK | Registered: Oct 2014
| IP: Logged

Posted
It's hard to tell with the press being controlled both sides of the atlantic by conservative factions. But I'd say he's been similar to our past labour government and somehow got far too entangled for his own good with industrial lobbyists - particularly on environmental issues. Here I'm particularly concerned about the two trade agreements being negotiated - how could the US sponsor international trade agreements that are secret even to government administration/elected representatives and which will if signed give supra-governmental powers to corporations?

There was a possibility that I think was seen worldwide, not just in America, for something radical and what we got instead was a steady hand.

Considering that he's had a philistinely hostile republican presence to battle (rather than a group of people who seem to be interested in government), he's probably done pretty well.

And on that note, looking across the pond, I am slightly concerned at how the US voting population seems to be splitting into two very conflicted camps. The principle of politics is to reach some hopefully wise and measured consensus of the direction of public opinion, and to steer public opinion through its more extreme and reactionary swings. That becomes harder as there is less middle ground consensus.

Posted
I just finished a book called, the Seven Nations of America which helps explain how our political system has come to a virtual gridlock.

It points out that how the South developed this anti black (or other minority) attitude.

There was a time when the Republican party had a very strong African American representation because it was the party of Lincoln. However, about the tie of FDR you begin to see a migration of the black vote to the Democratic Party.

Then came the civil rights movement when whites felt disenfranchised in what had originally been a states rights party (The Democrats)

The Republicans, under Lee Atwater, a Nixon political strategist, saw an opportunity to tap into this white voter hostility toward people of other races.

And the parties flipped. The party that had advocated a strong central government now became a states rights movement. And the states rights party became an advocate for the strong central government.

The book "Seven Nations" came out about midway through Obama's first term. Consequently it did not address the Republican takeover of the Congress. But it does say the opposition is large part do to Obama's skin color. It is sad.

Domestically, given the grief Obama has had to put up with, I would give him a solid B. He has accomplished much of what he said he would do, but there is a lot that is still on the table.

Foreign Policy wise I would give Obama a C. He is definitely better than Bush II but not as good as Clinton, for for that matter, Bush I.

I find he waits too long to make a decision and when he does, as far as foreign policy is concerned, it is not enough--the ISIS/ISIL situation as case in point.

Once these mid term elections are over he will effectively be a lame duck. I have never been a fan of term limits. I say let the man run as many times as he wants, but we Americans have a way of shooting ourselves in the foot.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged

Posted
Speaking as someone who isn't from the US, I find President Obama weak on foreign policy.

--------------------I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged

Posted
I've often wondered how the discourse around western interventionism would be going these days if it were a Republican rather than a Democrat making the arguments in favour.

Like, if it were President John McCain(backed by Fox News and bible-belt preachers) telling the world how we all need to bomb Syria to stop ISIS, would it get the kind of relatively broad support that Obama's arguments have garnered across the political spectrum? Or would progressive opinion just be "Yeah yeah yeah, more yankee fear-mongering just to get oil"?

I guess another way of phrasing this would be to say that, if it were a white Republican of unsullied Christian ancestry running the show in the US, the streets of global capitals would be clogged with a lot more protestors than we're seeing now. Like, "Tens of thousands gathered today in Whatever Square to voice their opposition to whatever bombing campaign etc".

quote:Stetson: Like, if it were President John McCain(backed by Fox News and bible-belt preachers) telling the world how we all need to bomb Syria to stop ISIS, would it get the kind of relatively broad support that Obama's arguments have garnered across the political spectrum? Or would progressive opinion just be "Yeah yeah yeah, more yankee fear-mongering just to get oil"?

I don't support the bombing of Syria by President Obama (but that's another thread).

--------------------I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged

quote:Originally posted by LeRoc: Speaking as someone who isn't from the US, I find President Obama weak on foreign policy.

The UK press seems to quite enjoy making Obama look impotent in the face of global threats. A bit strange since there is no general agreement that his predecessor's macho tactics did any other than make matters worse. All Obama has really done on foreign policy is continue the strategy embarked upon by Bush without looking like a berk.

I don't have much knowledge of the US to know whether his home policies have been successful or not.

quote:Originally posted by rolyn:I don't have much knowledge of the US to know whether his home policies have been successful or not.

We don't either.

iow, it depends on who you ask (which would probably be true anywhere, wouldn't it?).

fwiw, IMHO the record is mixed. I think the record shows clearly that Obamacare is working. Not was efficiently and effectively as a single-payer system would have, but that was never in the cards. Given the limitations he was working under, it was nothing short of miraculous he got this much done. And it has really been, literally, a life-saver. But you won't catch the GOP saying that. And since most of the progress is under-the-radar (e.g. the insurance policies that weren't cancelled because of a costly diagnosis; the medical bankruptcies that weren't filed, or a much smaller increase but still increasing costs) it's easy for many-- perhaps most-- to overlook that huge success. By my book, if that's all he accomplished, it would be wonderful.

I also think he's accomplished something amazing economically. Unemployment is finally down-- thank God. The economy is starting to turn around. We're not out of the woods yet but I think he managed to steer us out of a horrific skid that W started. But again, that's the sort of thing hard to see, because it depends on what you think would have happened if he hadn't been at the helm.

On other fronts, there's some real disappointments: particularly the lack of any real accountability in the financial sector-- the architects of the crash. Immigration and education reform are still on the to-do list.

Posted
I was hooked on him from his DNC speech in '04. I wish he had waited till 12 to run, but I voted for him in '08 just the same. To me, he is a True Believer. I think he really wanted, and still wants to make the USA the place it should be.

These days, it's pretty tough to do.

He made me mad letting Mega Church guy do the prayer the first time he took office. He's let me down on a couple of issues, but he's really tried, I think, to put his ideas into action. They might not be well implemented, but that's the way things work.

I'll take someone who I think really loves and cares for this country 'running' it over some entitled Skull Club inductee any day.

Unfortunately, the POTUS doesn't actually run the country, he just gets blamed for all of the screw ups that happen....

quote:rolyn: The UK press seems to quite enjoy making Obama look impotent in the face of global threats.

When I'm saying I find him weak on foreign policy, this doesn't necessarily mean that I find him impotent in the face of global threats. Those things don't mean the same thing.

It's just I was hoping for something more positive on him, for example towards the Israel / Palestine conflict. I haven't seen very much there.

--------------------I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged

quote:Originally posted by BessLane:He made me mad letting Mega Church guy do the prayer the first time he took office.

To some degree, it was payback-- of the most benign and appropriate kind. The one thing Rick did was invite Obama to speak at his MassiveChurchPlace several times even before '08, and then moderated a fairly decent debate in the '08 election. What that did was give legitimacy to all us long-forgotten lefty evangelicals. It affirmed that you could, in fact, vote Democratic and still be a card-carrying evangelical. I'm sure Rick didn't, but that doesn't change the fact that he did change the dialogue and move the goal posts to make a position like mine understandable to my fellow evangelicals. That was huge-- and helpful.

Unfortunately, the POTUS doesn't actually run the country, he just gets blamed for all of the screw ups that happen....

That's the way it looks.

"Yes we can" probably needed qualifying by "but separation of powers may mean that we can't".

And if the Senate goes GOP, I guess he becomes a two year rather than a one year lame duck. (But I see that Nate Silver is forecasting "not so likely". He gets it right a lot).

The question of "who comes next" will take over increasingly. And unless the GOP can find a way of expanding its appeal amongst ethnic minorities, it's likely to be a Democrat again. It's also unlikely that the GOP House Majority is in much danger of being overturned for a while yet, for different demographic reasons (which strike me from this side of the pond as the continuing dangerous freedoms to gerrymander electoral boundaries).

quote:Barnabas62: And if the Senate goes GOP, I guess he becomes a two year rather than a one year lame duck. (But I see that Nate Silver is forecasting "not so likely". He gets it right a lot).

That link is from September 2012. His current forecast says that Republicans will take the Senate.

--------------------I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged

Posted
He has been pragmatic to a fault, but not quite so pragmatic as Bill Clinton was.

Bush II had such a formative influence on what I expect a president to be that I am painfully hard to disappoint. While I have a fair number of frustrations, I have a generally favorable impression of Obama.

[ 13. October 2014, 00:47: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]

--------------------Some say that man is the root of all evilOthers say God's a drunkard for painMe, I believe that the Garden of EdenWas burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, HarrisburgPosts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged

quote:Originally posted by LeRoc: When I'm saying I find him weak on foreign policy, this doesn't necessarily mean that I find him impotent in the face of global threats. Those things don't mean the same thing.

Sorry, wasn't meaning to insinuate anything. To be fair I rarely watch TV news these days. When I do there's usually a hint of conservative bias TMM. Obama was made to look wobbly on IS which is unkind as the Mid-East mess has been inherited, not caused by him.

quote:Originally posted by Bullfrog.:Bush II had such a formative influence on what I expect a president to be that I am painfully hard to disappoint. While I have a fair number of frustrations, I have a generally favorable impression of Obama.

Well said. I'm not American, so by accident of geography I don't get to elect the person who impacts the geopolitics and economics of my region more than my own sad sack of a leader (don't get me started ). As far as I'm concerned, GWB was the worst leader I've seen in my lifetime, so anything was going to be a step up. And it has been. I am still very concerned about the US "intelligence" agencies determination to find out every single fucking detail about our lives, assisted ably by the very compliant social media giants and Google (hey, boys! I hope this isn't too boring a read for y'all!) If anything, Obama seems to have increased the reach of the NSA, which I find troubling. And the award of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 seems risible now. But still, from where I sit, he seems to be an improvement on his predecessor. Maybe he should set the bar a bit higher, though.

--------------------So don't ever call me luckyYou don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U

quote:Originally posted by Stetson: I've often wondered how the discourse around western interventionism would be going these days if it were a Republican rather than a Democrat making the arguments in favour.

Like, if it were President John McCain(backed by Fox News and bible-belt preachers) telling the world how we all need to bomb Syria to stop ISIS, would it get the kind of relatively broad support that Obama's arguments have garnered across the political spectrum? Or would progressive opinion just be "Yeah yeah yeah, more yankee fear-mongering just to get oil"?

I guess another way of phrasing this would be to say that, if it were a white Republican of unsullied Christian ancestry running the show in the US, the streets of global capitals would be clogged with a lot more protestors than we're seeing now. Like, "Tens of thousands gathered today in Whatever Square to voice their opposition to whatever bombing campaign etc".

According to non-president McCain he would not have removed our troops from Iraq and he would have intervened in the Syrian Civil War with not only air strikes but ground troops as well so ISIS would never have arisen. Of course, God only knows what mess we would be embroiled in now following his lead
Posts: 199 | From: Where once you could get a decent Brain Sandwich | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged

Then came the civil rights movement when whites felt disenfranchised in what had originally been a states rights party (The Democrats)

The Republicans, under Lee Atwater, a Nixon political strategist, saw an opportunity to tap into this white voter hostility toward people of other races.

And the parties flipped. The party that had advocated a strong central government now became a states rights movement. And the states rights party became an advocate for the strong central government.

Have not read the book. Are you sure about the Lee Atwater comment? He was too young to be part of the Nixon white house and was certainly not the originator of Nixon's Southern Strategy that did exploit the white southern voter's problem with civil rights. Johnson noted that when he signed the civil rights act of 1964 that the democrats "have lost the south for a generation."
Posts: 199 | From: Where once you could get a decent Brain Sandwich | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged

Posted
My issue with Obama is that he thinks being president is being a statesman and above the partisan politics when it is always a political office and,like Clinton, one needs the "continual campaign" while President, not just every two or four years. It is why I was for Hilary Clinton in 2008 because the Clintons are political fighters and would have given grief to the Republicans in equal or greater measure than they would receive.
Posts: 199 | From: Where once you could get a decent Brain Sandwich | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged

quote:Originally posted by Lawrence: My issue with Obama is that he thinks being president is being a statesman and above the partisan politics when it is always a political office and,like Clinton, one needs the "continual campaign" while President, not just every two or four years. It is why I was for Hilary Clinton in 2008 because the Clintons are political fighters and would have given grief to the Republicans in equal or greater measure than they would receive.

I'm not an American and don't really understand your system, but am I the only person who finds that statement very disturbing?

Once a person is elected, they are responsible for ruling everybody and in the interests of everybody, not just those who voted them in. Nor are they there to wield the big stick and oppress those who did not vote for them in the interests of those who did. Or that's what I think anyway, and certainly as applied within my own country's constitution.

To put it a different way, once a person is elected, isn't it their job to be a higher version of George III for four years?

quote:Originally posted by Enoch:To put it a different way, once a person is elected, isn't it their job to be a higher version of George III for four years?

Well, no; there's this whole balance of power thing, with the rule of law, not by persons. (See below for link.) Obama has been trying very hard to reunite what has become a scarily divided country, with some genuine animosity and viciousness coming from the extreme right-wing making it harder to accomplish that or anything else.

quote:Originally posted by BessLane:Unfortunately, the POTUS doesn't actually run the country, he just gets blamed for all of the screw ups that happen....

He's the first president that made me realise that this is true.

Which is to say that Obama has been the only President I can remember who is both smart enough and principled enough that I think he could be trusted with more power than he actually has. Every other US President (from Reagan onwards) I thought had too much power, but I wish Obama had been able to do more.

--------------------"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

quote:Originally posted by Lawrence: My issue with Obama is that he thinks being president is being a statesman and above the partisan politics when it is always a political office and,like Clinton, one needs the "continual campaign" while President, not just every two or four years. It is why I was for Hilary Clinton in 2008 because the Clintons are political fighters and would have given grief to the Republicans in equal or greater measure than they would receive.

I'm not an American and don't really understand your system, but am I the only person who finds that statement very disturbing?

Once a person is elected, they are responsible for ruling everybody and in the interests of everybody, not just those who voted them in. Nor are they there to wield the big stick and oppress those who did not vote for them in the interests of those who did. Or that's what I think anyway, and certainly as applied within my own country's constitution.

To put it a different way, once a person is elected, isn't it their job to be a higher version of George III for four years?

Well, I come from Canada, where we imported the British political system, and I would respectfully suggest that you are a tad naive if you think that governments under Westminster never mix governance with partisan self-interest.

I mean, have you honestly never heard anyone in the UK say something like "The only reason the people in Whereverbury got that new hospital built is because there was a by-election coming up and the government figured they had to toss them a few goodies"?
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged

quote:Originally posted by Stetson: Well, I come from Canada, where we imported the British political system, and I would respectfully suggest that you are a tad naive if you think that governments under Westminster never mix governance with partisan self-interest. ...

Of course they do. What I find disturbing - and I would hope most of the rest of us do - is somebody saying they would rather a politician who is in government rather than opposition did this more rather than less.

Posted
As for his dealings with Congress, I think early on in his first term he made the mistake of assuming that the congressional Republican, especially those in the House, were rational actors who were actually interested in formulating legislation. Instead he found that they were more interested in obstructing any and all functions of government especially those championed by Obama and preferred government shut-downs to compromise. He failed to appreciate the death grip the right wing extremists, i.e., the Tea Party,Fox News,etc., had on the Republicans and especially the congressional leadership.

He failed to understand that in these times politics has become a blood sport. I often thought that had I been in his position I would have carefully placed leaks to the press that I was going to move Federal and/or military personnel and facilities out of red states or red congressional district to blue states. It doesn't really matter if the President has the authority to do these things. The credible perception that these things could happen should be sufficient.
Posts: 3162 | From: Somerset, PA - USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged

quote:Originally posted by Stetson: Well, I come from Canada, where we imported the British political system, and I would respectfully suggest that you are a tad naive if you think that governments under Westminster never mix governance with partisan self-interest. ...

Of course they do. What I find disturbing - and I would hope most of the rest of us do - is somebody saying they would rather a politician who is in government rather than opposition did this more rather than less.

Well, as I read it, your statement seemed to suggest that you expect politicians to behave better than Lawrence was hoping for the Clintons to behave.

quote:Once a person is elected, they are responsible for ruling everybody and in the interests of everybody, not just those who voted them in. Nor are they there to wield the big stick and oppress those who did not vote for them in the interests of those who did. Or that's what I think anyway, and certainly as applied within my own country's constitution.

But if your post is meant as saying that you consider it perverse to wish for MORE sleazy self-interest in the system(while acknowleding that such tendencies already exist), I can go along with that.

I would like to point out, though, that in some ways, Westminister actually makes it easier for ruling-parties to taint the governance process with partisanship. I remember in the 80s, an NDP government in western Canada(the NDP being the Canadian version of Labour) called an election for December. A TV news reporter added as an afterthought...

"The premier is possibly hoping that harsh winter weather will keep traditionally conservative voters in rural areas away from the polls."

Obviously, such manipulation can't take place in a system where elections have to be held on a specific day in a specific year.

quote:Originally posted by Enoch:Once a person is elected, they are responsible for ruling everybody and in the interests of everybody, not just those who voted them in. Nor are they there to wield the big stick and oppress those who did not vote for them in the interests of those who did. Or that's what I think anyway, and certainly as applied within my own country's constitution.

To put it a different way, once a person is elected, isn't it their job to be a higher version of George III for four years?

You as a candidate for President need to put together some sort of coalition of interests groups (e.g., from defense issues, social issues, financial issues) to get the electoral votes and the political mandate to get elected and actually govern. There is now the expectation that you will do your best to get the agenda you campaigned on actually enacted. Your opposition will try its best to stop you. You will need to use the full arsenal of political tactics available to you in order to get some or all of that agenda enacted into law and operational. That requires the "continual campaign" if you wish to be successful. There is a certain duplicity that all successful politicians need to use to get elected (i.e., they promise to do something that they have no intention of doing), but you need to honestly attempt to satisfy those that got you elected. You won't appear to be a higher version of anything if you ignore what got you elected and you will appear to be more of a chump, or an idiot, than a statesman if you think you can "elevate" yourself above the political fray and "rule everybody" in their best interests.
Posts: 199 | From: Where once you could get a decent Brain Sandwich | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged

Nina Pham, the first person to be infected with Ebola within the United States, had just been declared disease-free and discharged from the National Institutes of Health. Obama is a rational, science-friendly guy, so he knew she wasnít any danger to him. It didnít take courage to hug her.

An important counterweight to the prevailing Republican position which seems to be "ZOMG we're all going to DIE!!!1!!1!" The article goes on to contrast Obama's approach with that of Reagan's handling of the early days of the AIDS crisis. You can probably guess who comes off looking better.

quote:Originally posted by romanlion: He wasn't killing his own citizens and their minor children with drones just yet.

I have to say I find it mystifying that this particular incident has been treated as such a big deal, given the vast numbers of American citizens killed by American law enforcement in America - whether justified or not (and I'd say in some cases it clearly IS justified by doctrines of self-defence).

But kill an American overseas, using a drone? Suddenly THAT'S a basis for demonising an entire Presidency.

--------------------Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged

quote:Originally posted by Brenda Clough: Obamacare.Jesus H. Christ on an everloving bicycle, we have health insurance. You in other countries cannot know how big a deal this is.

Indeed I think this, in the end, is going to be seen as the big story from Obama's presidency in years to come. It's the kind of change that is going to continue to affect the lives of a huge proportion of the American population.

--------------------Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged

O. wasn't just handed a full plate--he got a 12 course buffet for 508 people, was stuck with the cleanup, and has a minute-by-minute job review every day. The Republicans in Congress swore, from the beginning, that they would never approve anything he was for. Oh, and a bunch of people thought he was a/the Messiah. And hated him when he wasn't.

romanlion (or anyone else): I'll probably regret asking, but in what way is O. a bigot??

Posted
The only American presidents that have made this Australian sit up and take notice have been Kennedy and Cliton. I find Obama very dull and boring and usually turn off the tv when he is making a speech. He certainly doesn't appear as the brightest star in the sky to me.

Posted
Speaking as someone from outside the U.S. who doesn't know much about U.S. politics it was bloody confusing seeing congress continually block the president again and again on issue after issue.

I think growing up I bought into the propaganda of the president being "very powerful" and "in charge". When government grinds to a halt as happened recently or you realize that there is still no surgeon general in the midst of Ebola panic and you realize that in fact he isn't in charge it's....as I said above bloody confusing.

Also makes you wonder about American democracy in the sense that the guy the majority voted into power is being overruled "mostly" by people belonging to the party that the majority didn't vote for.